Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Getting very tired of this stupid game you are playing.
Unless you can provide a real, qualitative and quantitative model of the EC, there is absolutely nothing to discuss.
You will just claim any paper that mentions electric field (no matter what kind) as a confirmation of your double layer obsession and of the necessary enormous electric fields that the EC needs to discharge machine the surface of the comet (without actually being visible in the magnetometer data, now THAT is magic).

Yawn!

THERE ARE NO ELECTRIC FIELDS IN SPACE!!!

No electric fields needed or wanted for the dirtysnowball sublimation model to work Pffft...

Twelve years you've been peddling your tired, irrelevent, inconsequential, "anti-science" religion without anything to show for it! Twelve years with no science! Twelve years with no predictive model! Twelve years with no supporting evidence! Twelve years with no mainstream converts! Pathetic really! Sol88, if you can't convince a mainstream scientist like me that your electric comet has utility and research potential, your model will never grow beyond these forum walls? Seriously! When can we expect a properly peer-reviewed 'electric comet' paper in A&A or MNRAS or ...? What? No cojones? Not a surprize! Best not to expose your electric comet to peer-review! Obviously there is nothing there that is worthy of mainstream's time and attention! Question for you 'ec' expert -- How many people think your 'electric comet' is part of a scam?

And it only gets harder from here!

As I've stated previously, mainstream science cannot be used to describe your electric comet! Why? Your electric comet violates fundamental laws of physics, and ignores decades of observational evidence! Your electric comet is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! Unless you and your 'eu/es/ec' buddies develope new physics, your electric comet will only be modelled using myth and magic! That is not science! Again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO MAINSTREAM SCIENCE that can help you model your electric rock! If YOUR electric comet did not violate fundamental laws of physics, then MY mainstream physics would be applicable ... and progress would have been made already!

For decades, there's been no scientific progress on your electric comet because your electric comet is not science! Now, why is that so hard to comprehend?

Do you ever take the time to think about the bigger picture and your lasting legacy? Do you ever take the time to ask yourself the fundamental 'philosophical' questions,

Could everything I believe about the electric comet be wrong?Could everything I believe about the electric star be wrong?Could everything I believe about the electric universe be wrong?

The reason I use the word 'believe' is that YOU have shown no sign of 'knowing or understanding' your own electric comet model, or the mainstream physics, chemistry, and observational data that consistently and continuously refutes every aspect of your fantasy!

Would you like to try again? After all, Part IV of your useless, delusional ISF thread should be the charm, right?

AS THE 'electric comet' EXPERT, YOU HAVE PUT ON A PATHETIC SHOW, Sol88! Where's your evidence?

How about we refresh everyone's memory regarding your ongoing failures to address fundamental flaws with YOUR electric comet model ...! Because YOU claim to understand the electric comet, I'll ask all the questions! As the resident 'ec' expert, you must answer all my questions! Fair? This is, after all your 'electric comet' thread! I still don't know why we have to keep reminding you of this fact!

01) Could any principles or physics of the electric comet be WRONG?
02) Could any principles or physics of the electric star be WRONG?
03) Could any principles or physics of the electric universe be WRONG?
04) Could every principle of the electric universe be WRONG?05) Does gravity play any part in orbital mechanics? *1*
06) Does gravity play any part in star formation processes?
07) Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in orbital mechanics?
08) Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in star formation processes?
09) Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occuring in the core?
10) Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occuring on the surface?
11) Are asteroids made of rock?
12) Are asteroids made of volatile ices and dusts?
13) Are comets made of rock?
14) Are comets made of volatile ices and dusts?
15) Is sublimation (i.e., a state change from solid to gas) a real physical process?16) Is eccentricity important to comet charging and discharging processes? *2*
17) Is electric discharge machining responsible for terrestrial geomorphology (e.g., the Grand Canyon)?
18) Does a magnetic field always indicate the presence of a current?
19) Do you know where the water ice line is for our star at this point in its life cycle?
20) Do you know what a sedimentary tidal rhythmite is?

*1* I believe you have inadvertantly answered this question in the affirmative. Gravity does play a role in orbital mechanics! I wonder if gravity might also be more important than electrostatics/electrodynamics by several orders of magnitude?
*2* Absolutely NOT! NO VIABLE PHYSICAL MECHANISM OR PREDICTIVE MODEL HAS EVER BEEN PROPOSED BY THE 'ec' COMMUNITY TO PROVE THIS CLAIM! The concept is truly laughable! The concept is part of an ongoing series of epic FAILURES!

Do you remember ignoring this fundamental 'ec' modelling requirement?

Using electrostatics, electrodynamics, and orbital mechanics, show how eccentricity is responsible for the charging and discharging of your electric comet!

In case it was not obvious, eccentricity has nothing to do with your electric comet!

Restated: The idea that eccentricity is, in any way, responsible for the charging and discharging of electric rocks is obviously WRONG! Thus, Sol88 is WRONG! Wally is WRONG! Donny is WRONG! Shall I go on?

Do you recall the table of 'randomly selected' orbital data required to PREDICT electric comet charging and discharging behaviour? This is but one of a thousand glaring FAILURES on your part! All your spouting about plasma physics is meaningless until you have resolved all the outstanding foundational issues associated with your electric comet! By the way, what are your plasma physics credentials anyway? You have a PhD from where? Sol88, your displayed knowledge and understanding of plasma physics is laughable and 'always' WRONG! Everyone that reads this thread will come to the conclusion that Sol88 is WRONG!

For your 'ec' expert consideration! Please note, this table has been expanded by five records to further illustrate that ECCENTRICITY PLAYS ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN THE BEHAVIOUR OF YOUR electric rock!

Object ID

a

e

i

q

Q

Comet 372P/McNaught

4.496

0.1539

9.52

3.80

5.19

Comet 367P/Catalina

3.511

0.2800

8.46

2.53

4.49

Comet 116P/Wild 4

3.478

0.3725

3.61

2.19

4.78

Asteroid 2001 KD55

3.344

0.6235

9.98

1.26

5.43

Asteroid 2014 LS26

3.364

0.6289

10.86

1.25

5.48

Asteroid 2000 DQ110

3.361

0.6297

58.28

1.25

5.48

Asteroid 2016 RP33

3.334

0.6343

23.04

1.22

5.45

Asteroid 2014 XN40

3.381

0.6349

14.20

1.24

5.53

Asteroid 1986 RA

3.327

0.6358

19.13

1.21

5.44

Comet 67P/C-G

3.463

0.6414

7.05

1.24

5.69

Asteroid 2014 HW177

3.302

0.6437

13.00

1.18

5.43

Asteroid 1995 QN3

3.300

0.6450

14.79

1.17

5.43

Asteroid 2014 HY196

3.526

0.6561

42.29

1.21

5.84

Asteroid 2016 WX8

3.529

0.6572

13.29

1.21

5.85

Asteroid 2016 LA2

3.565

0.6748

17.43

1.16

5.97

Asteroid 2011 YY28

3.388

0.6765

7.35

1.10

5.68

Comet 2P/Encke

2.218

0.8471

11.76

0.33

4.11

Comet 1P/Halley

17.83

0.9671

162.3

0.59

35.1

Columns: a = Semi-major axis (AU), e = Eccentricity, i = Inclination, q = Perihelion (AU), Q = Apihelion (AU). All data extracted from the JPL SBDB. Please note, the tabulated data, above, is a trivial subset of a greater whole. Furthermore, two of six cometary bodies are classified as JFC's, three of six are ETC's, and one is an HTC. Can you identify which of the three families the six listed comets belong to, and why? What does your 'ec' model say about comet families? Has the 'ec' community ever discussed comet families?

So, Sol88, what's WRONG with your electric comet? Everyone that reads this will KNOW that eccentricity plays no role in your 'ec' model! That means that you, Sol88, are obviously WRONG! Again!

You know, ... it's OK to admit that you are clueless, Sol88! Unfortunately, religions are NEVER WRONG! Sol88, your 'eu/es/ec' religion appears to have ALL the answers, yet cannot show me, in mathematical terms, how eccentricity is important in electric rock behaviour! SCIENCE FAILURE! And religious success!

Comets are made of volatile ices and dust! The volatile ices sublimate when insolated! FACT!

The data in the above table is sufficient proof that eccentricity is not involved in the charging and discharging of electric rocks! A list of 18 objects --- with eccentricities ranging from 0.1539 to 0.9671! Only six are deemed to be comets! Why? Because comets are made of volatile ices and dust with the ices being sufficiently close to the surface to allow sublimation when insolated! That's a fact!

It's your model, Sol88! You fix it! And forget about plasmas! You have a thousand much more fundamental problems to resolve before we can start talking about your pathetic lack of knowledge and skills when dealing with plasmas! Remember, you still have an unresolved density problem! And I've so many more unanswerable questions just for you!

Remember, Sol88, the internet never forgets ... ANYTHING! In twelve years now, you have FAILED to provide any tangible evidence to support your religious delusion that you try to pass off as science! Truly LAUGHABLE! Sadly PATHETIC! By the way, how are your two kids? As a parent, I do hope you've allowed them to pursue their own religious fantasies and adventures without drawing them into your steaming, 'electric excrement' soaked mess!

Oh! And FYI! MHD is still a valid modelling tool when dealing with specific plasma structures around comets! If you understance vector calculus, we can discuss several ways in which kinetic models can fail around comets!

*2* Absolutely NOT! NO VIABLE PHYSICAL MECHANISM OR PREDICTIVE MODEL HAS EVER BEEN PROPOSED BY THE 'ec' COMMUNITY TO PROVE THIS CLAIM! The concept is truly laughable! The concept is part of an ongoing series of epic FAILURES!

Do you remember ignoring this fundamental 'ec' modelling requirement?

Quote:

After the event, the Thunderbolts crew was scurrying to find reliable data on the timing of the flare, to see if it actually began microseconds before the impact. Thornhill had predicted an advance flash following the intensity curve of lightning. Whether the cameras will answer the latter question is uncertain, but it appears that a flare did indeed precede the main flash. Pete Schultz of Brown University, suggested that the first flare "indicates a layered structure for the comet.… My guess is there was soft layering on top, [the impactor] went down, and finally got in contact with ices."

Obligatory guesses of this sort can only add to the exasperation of the electrical theorists. The comet was approaching the impactor at 23,000 miles per hour. A soft surface layer, which various guesses have put at perhaps ten feet or so, would have no measurable effect on the timing of an impact flare, and it would not separate a flare into two phases as appears to have occurred.

Lying about the universe and "statndard plasma laws" to derail from electric insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88

No beef, just paying more attention to the 99.6% Universe and the statndard plasma laws that apply to the EM force tat's 39 orders of magnitude than gravity!

Lying about the universe and "statndard plasma laws" to derail from his electric comet insanity.
The universe is less than 5% plasma.
The amount of plasma does not make plasma laws magically dominate the universe.
A standard plasma law is that plasmas are quasi-neutral . The Debye length is a scale above which plasma acts as neutral gas.
The EM force is not always "39 orders of magnitude than gravity". The EM force between two neutral, massive objects is zero, while gravity is non-zero !

An insult to derail from his 9 years of Thunderbolts cult dogma crusading

Originally Posted by Sol88

Oh dear an institutionalized science crusader...

An insult and lie to derail from his 9 years of deluded Thunderbolts cult dogma crusading in this thread.

The post is about the abysmal failures of the electric comet that make it insane. There are some physics and facts listed.

Originally Posted by Indagator

Comets are made of volatile ices and dust! The volatile ices sublimate when insolated! FACT!

The data in the above table is sufficient proof that eccentricity is not involved in the charging and discharging of electric rocks! A list of 18 objects --- with eccentricities ranging from 0.1539 to 0.9671! Only six are deemed to be comets! Why? Because comets are made of volatile ices and dust with the ices being sufficiently close to the surface to allow sublimation when insolated! That's a fact!

It's your model, Sol88! You fix it! And forget about plasmas! You have a thousand much more fundamental problems to resolve before we can start talking about your pathetic lack of knowledge and skills when dealing with plasmas! Remember, you still have an unresolved density problem! And I've so many more unanswerable questions just for you!

Remember, Sol88, the internet never forgets ... ANYTHING! In twelve years now, you have FAILED to provide any tangible evidence to support your religious delusion that you try to pass off as science! Truly LAUGHABLE! Sadly PATHETIC! By the way, how are your two kids? As a parent, I do hope you've allowed them to pursue their own religious fantasies and adventures without drawing them into your steaming, 'electric excrement' soaked mess!

Oh! And FYI! MHD is still a valid modelling tool when dealing with specific plasma structures around comets! If you understance vector calculus, we can discuss several ways in which kinetic models can fail around comets!

It is a physical fact that plasma conducts, i.e. is not an insulator . MHD has been treating plasma as a non-perfect conductor for decades. Ideal MHD is used for the cases of plasma that has "so little resistivity that it can be treated as a perfect conductor".

It is a physical fact that plasma conducts, i.e. is not an insulator . MHD has been treating plasma as a non-perfect conductor for decades. Ideal MHD is used for the cases of plasma that has "so little resistivity that it can be treated as a perfect conductor".

This ice and dust WE KNOW is left over from the the collapse of the solar nebula.

Some of this dust formed around the central star and then, somehow, ended up mixing with ice to form...comets!

When this mixture of ICE and dust gets close enough to the Sun, some of the ice sublimates and form the coma and tail.

That's the bedtime story told by astronomers world wide!

Quote:

(c) What are comets made of?

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly
rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative
model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving
more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high
as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty about even this
basic parameter, not least of which is that most measurements are subject to selection effects in
removing refractories from the nucleus to the coma, where they are observed as dust.

So, sol, are you now claiming that outside of MHD plasmas are non-conducting dielectrics?
Would be nice to see your calculations about how charge is building up around a comet and then suddenly discharges, without actually setting of a huge signal in the RPC package.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

01) Could any principles/physics of the electric comet be wrong? ... Yes/No
02) Could any principles/physics of the electric star be wrong? ... Yes/No
03) Could any principles/physics of the electric universe be wrong? ... Yes/No
04) Could every aspect of the electric universe be wrong? ... Yes/No
05) Does gravity play any part in orbital mechanics? ... Yes/No
06) Does gravity play any part in star formation processes? ... Yes/No
07) Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in orbital mechanics? ... Yes/No
08) Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in star formation processes? ... Yes/No
09) Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occurring in the core? ... Yes/No
10) Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occurring on the surface? ... Yes/No
11) Are asteroids made of rock? ... Yes/No
12) Are asteroids made of volatile ices and dusts? ... Yes/No
13) Are comets made of rock? ... Yes/No
14) Are comets made of volatile ices and dusts? ... Yes/No
15) Is sublimation (i.e., a state change from solid to gas) a real physical process? ... Yes/No
16) Is eccentricity important to comet charging and discharging processes? ... Yes/No
17) Is electric discharge machining responsible for terrestrial geomorphology (e.g., the Grand Canyon)? ... Yes/No
18) Does a magnetic field always indicate the presence of an electric current? ... Yes/No
19) Do you know where the water ice line is for our star at this point in its life cycle? ... Yes/No
20) Do you know what a sedimentary tidal rhythmite is? ... Yes/No

No beef, just paying more attention to the 99.6% Universe and the statndard plasma laws that apply to the EM force tat's 39 orders of magnitude than gravity!

That would be for two protons, now try again for macroscopic bodies.

Originally Posted by Sol88

If you'd like to play around with force's then have a crack at these two

F = G * m1 * m2 / d2

then have a crack at

F = Ke * q1 * q2 / r2

And as there are two signs of charges, the electrosatic force can be shielded, something that is impossible for the gravitational force.

So, just dumping two equations is not going to get you far, if you do not understand the basics of physics.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

So, sol, are you now claiming that outside of MHD plasmas are non-conducting dielectrics?
Would be nice to see your calculations about how charge is building up around a comet and then suddenly discharges, without actually setting of a huge signal in the RPC package.

Whats a dynamo system with electromagnetic generators and loads? Sound VERY electric comet to this little black duck!

Quote:

Results. We find that a shock-like structure is formed upstream of the comet and acts as an electromagnetic generator, similar to the bow shock at Earth that slows down the solar wind. The Poynting flux transports electromagnetic energy toward the inner coma, where newly born cometary ions are accelerated. Upstream of the shock-like structure, we find local energy transfer from solar wind ions to cometary ions. We show that mass loading can be a local process with a direct transfer of energy, but also part of a dynamo system with electromagnetic generators and loads.

You can add the electrified dusty plasma that extends from the surface of the comet all the way to ....... no one knows but it's fkn big!

You hopefully do know that there is no such thing as a "kinetic" or a "fluid" plasma. These are two ways of numerically, that is in computer simulations, to deal with the development of plasmas. So it is the "fluid" or "kinetic" approach, the plasma is just plasma.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Still working on that's why mainstream think the comets bulk density is less than what it's made out of especially since our understanding is evolving toward mainly rock!

So how does electrostatics work?

Have you never realised that that is exactly the same question?

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

You are too shy to answer any REAL questions as the resident SUPER DUPER SPACE PLASMA PHYSICIST, tusenfem?

Why?

Do you feel threatened?

Oh yeah, I am feel very threatened.
I think you probably have an inferiority complex.
Isn't life wonderful?

Originally Posted by Sol88

Whats a dynamo system with electromagnetic generators and loads? Sound VERY electric comet to this little black duck!

No, it sounds very circuit theory-ish.
Ic cannot sound like an electric comet, because there is no electric comet model to check it with, so fail there.

Originally Posted by Sol88

You can add the electrified dusty plasma that extends from the surface of the comet all the way to ....... no one knows but it's fkn big!

What is "electrified dusty plasma" supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by Sol88

It is most definitely NOT sublimating iceballs!

If that is what you got from Jesper's paper, one has to say "the confusion works deeply in this one" as it has absolutely, but really absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the nucleus of a comet is a "sublimating ice ball". There is a source term in the simulations and that is that. Jesper makes NO claims at all, about what the nucleus is composed of.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Neutralizing, here, means that the total space charge is zero, not that the ions and electrons recombine.
*sigh* talking about confusion and not understanding ...

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Which is an extremely dumb thing to say, given we see the ice and we see the vapour. Really dumb. Figured out the answers to indagator's questions yet? Or just going to keep avoiding them, because the answers mess up your religion?

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Oh yeah, I am feel very threatened.
I think you probably have an inferiority complex.
Isn't life wonderful?

No, it sounds very circuit theory-ish.
Ic cannot sound like an electric comet, because there is no electric comet model to check it with, so fail there.

What is "electrified dusty plasma" supposed to mean?

If that is what you got from Jesper's paper, one has to say "the confusion works deeply in this one" as it has absolutely, but really absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the nucleus of a comet is a "sublimating ice ball". There is a source term in the simulations and that is that. Jesper makes NO claims at all, about what the nucleus is composed of.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

i did not say that and neither did kevin heretier
but you can believe that if you like

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Which has nothing to do with rock. Take a shed load of it, put it in a furnace, melt it, let it cool, and you'll get a rock. That has not happened to this dust. It is individual grains. It cannot have been blasted off a planet by a dirty great lightning bolt. Ergo, the electric comet doesn't even get past first base.
Asteroids are rock. They don't behave like comets. Why not?

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.